Yes, absolutely, universities are awash in data they do little to anything with outside of hyperfocused laboratories. I wonder if having central data management groups would be an enabler or a bottleneck, however.
I think this article rings true for most universities, but for some, like mine, we’ve had unified systems for the last 20 years. While that’s been helpful in a lot of ways, the primary thing we’re looking for - helping students graduate and get better jobs than they have today - is surprisingly challenging. Adult learners often fail to finish school for a variety of reasons, most of which aren’t academic and often can’t easily be forecast using all available data.
Unifying data sources or mining them further doesn’t solve student health issues, childcare, jugging work responsibilities with school, etc.
What’s more, universities are slow-moving, heavily bureaucratic, and highly regulated. So even when we have good ideas to relieve burden those often come head to head with accreditation rules, financial aid regulations.
In my opinion, for my students at least, data is the least of our problems.
They have 0 visibility into any of the operations and therefore can’t derive any insights or install controls.
They have no idea if:
Some professors more effective teachers than others.
Which days students buy more food.
Whether taking a given prerequisite leads to better mastery of advanced material.
If additional spend is correlated with better student outcomes.
For people in tech businesses, it’s such a shocking thing to read it’s hard to fathom how any of the leadership at universities find this situation acceptable.
Teaching outcomes are evident from exam results, grants won, papers published etc and are routinely used to determine promotions, staffing and more. Food/footfall etc are monitored and predicted by the private catering companies on campus. Budget reviews are comprehensive and require yearly and greater analysis of university performance on a per department basis. All that doesn't even include competitive processes like ranking tables for universities, applications for grants, participation in international research groups etc etc.
What are you even talking about? Literally every course at most universities end with an evaluation. Obviously, there are other problematic ways to measure effectiveness (publications). How much that data gets used is another question and varies widely by institution. “People in tech businesses” love to exaggerate the quality of the data they have and its usefulness, hence the Subprime Attention Crisis that is rapidly eroding their cash on hand as the Fed’s cheap money and QE dries up.
I’m in a tech business and it doesn’t sound shocking at all. The only things people really have data for is how many people are giving them how much money.